I find the line of thought that thigns should [specifically] be simplified and streamlined - just because - to be a bit contradictory with the nature of this project.

What is "gross inflation" of action points anyway? Certainly not the "Fallout way" of doing them. I could understand the point if the talk was about amounts that are count in multiple 10's (even if I'd probably still disagree, but nonetheless).

To me, the idea of drawing every action to the same level of cost regardless of the effort/effect ratio simply sounds uninteresting and - frankly - unfun. Shooting a pistol being equal to shooting an LMG, despite the LMG being, what, 20 times (?) bigger, requiring much more effort to use and yielding much higher payoffs? No thanks, the actions become monotonous as you stop considering what would be the best approach because, obviously, you'll much more likely want to shoot a couple of times with an LMG than with a pistol.

I like those little considerations of "do I rather shoot once with a hunting rifle for better accuracy, or risk by shooting twice with a Magnum for a chance of doing more damage".

this is very disappointing. the AP-system never felt good and was extremely annoying for me in fallout 2. it overcomplicatethings without giving any benefits. i dont like it. inxile should have invested some energy in a good new system instead of using annoying mechanics of the past.

When people dont get to do as much as they want in a turnbased environment, due to theorycrafting, they come up with reasons as to why they should be allowed to. No matter what the action point system is about. "Gross Inflation" is the same as saying "Ok, i need X more action points or x more movement for each point spent because i want to do this and that too in my combat turn". In Fallout Tactics you had this perk that enabled you to move x% further each turn. Instead of having perks these people want it for free. This is a kind of tradeoff mechanic some people just cant stand.

If you follow this "gross inflation" reasoning to the end you´ll end up in a real time environment. No a continuous turnbased environment have the same issue.

When people dont get to do as much as they want in a turnbased environment, due to theorycrafting, they come up with reasons as to why they should be allowed to. No matter what the action point system is about. "Gross Inflation" is the same as saying "Ok, i need X more action points or x more movement for each point spent because i want to do this and that too in my combat turn". In Fallout Tactics you had this perk that enabled you to move x% further each turn. Instead of having perks these people want it for free. This is a kind of tradeoff mechanic some people just cant stand.

If you follow this "gross inflation" reasoning to the end you´ll end up in a real time environment. No a continuous turnbased environment have the same issue.

If action points will limit the player to doing only a few actions each turn then how is it different from 1 action per point? You can achieve the same desired results without excessive math. With 10+ AP's we will be doing lots of actions per turn or AP costs will be inflated.

Lucius wrote:If action points will limit the player to doing only a few actions each turn then how is it different from 1 action per point?

Because you can then manage your decisions to a more precise level. Not every distance walked equals the same kind of action, not every shot aimed or not depending on kind of weapon takes the same kind of investment. Reloading being more expensive than moving but less expensive than shooting changes your consideration in when to reload and move or when to shoot, and how to save action points in the pacing of your actions so you can reload. Simplifying it down to one action = one point removes precision in decision-making and limits the developer's choices in creatively balancing weapons, movement and taking/popping out of cover, as well as leaving AP if that confers a bonus.

Simply put, a multi-AP system allows for more refined decision-making, whereas one-point-per-action limits the player's freedom and simplifies the system down. Both of those effects are very much so against Wasteland 2's stated design goals, wouldn't you say?

And honestly, once you're a bit into a system you're fine, you get used to pistols taking 4, rifles taking 5, and you start taking these actions intuitively. I really find it hard to accept that counting up to 10 would count as "excessive math" to you.

@Lucius The problem - the way I see it - is that you do not make any distinction between actions, but consider them "just actions". Stabbing with a stiletto is the same as firing an assaultrifle is the same as changing a belt to a machinegun is the same to rummaging through your backpack to find whatever, etc. A lot of tactical depth is thrown away as the actions/items are devalued - no inherent merits or drawbacks between tactical choices - and the result is straightforward and obvious.

Lucius wrote:If action points will limit the player to doing only a few actions each turn then how is it different from 1 action per point?

Even in a realtime based game the player is restricted as to how many keystrokes are allowed with a set amounts of time. You can circumvent this by having scripts spamming and reducing time between keystrokes if you want. But that is crutch as far as im concerned. Wount be an issue in a turnbased environment though.

Devs seems to value each action differently. This to create a certain pace to the game. Thats what the various turnbased variations are about. Since you have the speed attribute...in theory...could work. But what if people decide to exploit this?

Max out speed and be content with a higher chance of failure. With the "if you cant hit them use more bullets" as guidance.

An AP system is far and away more complex then Wasteland's system. Having every gun type using multiple action points adds nothing but complexity for the sake of complexity. (Note exceptions in earlier post, ie LAWs). Weapons can be balanced in other ways such as range and accuracy. Having pistols use 4 AP and rifles use 5 means I will need to calculate damage/AP cost to determine what is best. Look more math!

Precision in movement (one step at a time) is the only advantage I can see to having so many action points. I don't think it adds enough to out weigh a simpler system.

Please note, I hate real time tactical. I want turn based, just not so drawn out.

Lucius wrote:An AP system is far and away more complex then Wasteland's system. Having every gun type using multiple action points adds nothing but complexity for the sake of complexity. (Note exceptions in earlier post, ie LAWs). Weapons can be balanced in other ways such as range and accuracy. Having pistols use 4 AP and rifles use 5 means I will need to calculate damage/AP cost to determine what is best. Look more math!

If devs take in consideration the opinion of most gamers all the games would be utterly simple, it is already happening (i agree with Woolfe about XCOM), people are becoming too lazy to play a demanding game and this is becoming really anoying.
You need maths to play properly any game, if you balance trough range and accuracy you would still needing maths to calculate accuracy in function of damage, and range in function of movement.
Maths are even needed to play modern FPS, you need knowledge about parabolic shot and the Newton laws in order to throw grenades at Halo 4. You need charts with up to 20 variables in order to choose a proper gun for a given situation in Battlefield 3.
And more important you need to make rough calculations at every second, in TB you can always stop and think what are you doing. Also a complex system doesnt really require you to fully understand it, if you are too lazy to think you can always play the game more or less ok, but if you take a bit of time to understand what is it all about then youll become BETTER at it, and this is when satisfaction comes.
Modern day games wants to eliminate this kind of satisfaction, so casual and n00b players can have fun, the question here is, are you one of them?

Lucius wrote:.
Asking a little more of the player is not true. We are talking 7 turns every round to every combat. This adds up to thousands of turns throughout a game of having to calculate what can be squeezed into the turn. This is asking A LOT of the player, not a "little more". I think you are right it would be more balanced, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it would be more satisfying.

The harder a system is the more satisfaction it delivers when you do things well.

Lucius wrote:An AP system is far and away more complex then Wasteland's system. Having every gun type using multiple action points adds nothing but complexity for the sake of complexity. (Note exceptions in earlier post, ie LAWs). Weapons can be balanced in other ways such as range and accuracy. Having pistols use 4 AP and rifles use 5 means I will need to calculate damage/AP cost to determine what is best. Look more math!

Precision in movement (one step at a time) is the only advantage I can see to having so many action points. I don't think it adds enough to out weigh a simpler system.

Please note, I hate real time tactical. I want turn based, just not so drawn out.

I think I realise and understand some of Mandemon's dislike of this system now. He is thinking of the original Xcom which did things like requiring to turn etc. I have been more thinking along the lines of the new xcom, but with the ability to do a lot more in a turn.

So things like Auto-Cover, Automatically looking around and using your senses etc, to give a 360 degree view, Autofire when on overwatch, but with say 10 ap (varied by speed).
But you then have the more complex options avaiable, going through your inventory (as opposed to something in a quick to hand location), swapping weapons, dropping and picking up weapons and other objects. Maybe throwing ammo to another player, throwing knives, throwing grenades, throwing a rock you pick off the ground(distraction value?). Maybe communication(taunting could be cool, but also negotiating under fire). All that sort of stuff.

So things like movement would be Walk/Dash, where if you are walking you make best use of cover, versus if you are dashing you are trying to get to the point as quick as possible, cover is secondary to fast movement. But then have an overide, in which maybe you choose to walk without using the cover. (Making yourself a target on purpose)

I have no idea what they are doing, but that above is my current ideal. You get the ease of use from the simplification, but it still allows for more complex behaviours.

As BN said, you get used to the AP usage amounts, and it becomes somewhat second nature.

reiniat wrote:people are becoming too lazy to play a demanding game and this is becoming really anoying.

So are the self-proclaimed hard core gamers who consider anyone with a slightly different view to be inferior troglodytes who don't deserve to play games.

The Kalashnikov is rated to 800 rounds per minute and can easily exceed that. Saying that a 3 round burst (0.225 seconds) takes 6 "action points" while a single trigger pull of a 9mm somehow only takes 4 action points is just as ridiculous and no more realistic than "one action per turn", and it's ludicrous to imply otherwise.

Drool wrote:The Kalashnikov is rated to 800 rounds per minute and can easily exceed that. Saying that a 3 round burst (0.225 seconds) takes 6 "action points" while a single trigger pull of a 9mm somehow only takes 4 action points is just as ridiculous and no more realistic than "one action per turn", and it's ludicrous to imply otherwise.

Indeed. That's why the term "action points" needs to be defined and contextualized before any effective discussion can happen. Right now, action point is some scalar, ambiguous term that measures nothing at the moment. Depending on how you define the context, it can completely change everything about term.

For example (NOT directly related to wasteland 2, but merely a made up example):

1. Define a "round" of combat to be 10 seconds of in-game time passage.
2. Actions points are derived from the average of two attributes that can ranged from 1 - 10. Hence, the max of 10 and the average of 5, and the possible minimum of 1.
3. Action points cannot be increased or decreased, except through temporary abilities.

Now for the final bit of context in this example: Action Points are the representative amount of work a character can perform effectively within a 10 second round.

At this point, there can be some effective discussion about action point costs of actions. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people arguing whether 4 mink furs is worth the same as 23 possum hides, while some say we should just simply trade in the qualitative speculation of buffalo skulls, and some think these guys should take their smelly dead animal bits out of the trade depot.

By throwing "realism" out the window and standardizing everything into a 1 action per turn system. Yes, a snap shot, burst, and full auto attack all take different time, but now we aren't pretending to somehow be more realistic.

And then we avoid abusive silliness like the right perks, high agility, and the alien blaster from Fallout 1. "You can pull the trigger on your plasma rifle once, or the trigger on this pistol five times."

By throwing "realism" out the window and standardizing everything into a 1 action per turn system. Yes, a snap shot, burst, and full auto attack all take different time, but now we aren't pretending to somehow be more realistic.

And then we avoid abusive silliness like the right perks, high agility, and the alien blaster from Fallout 1. "You can pull the trigger on your plasma rifle once, or the trigger on this pistol five times."

how about just one weapon in the game. fun.
and really challenging, once you figure out which weapon that is.